Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Last time we discussed competitive and hobby approach to wargames. And as the comments show, most of you think that wargames are firstly a hobby, and only then – sport. Today we’ll talk about the scale of hobby.
Sure, the difference between skirmish wargames and their large-scale counterparts is obvious. However, there are a lot of options inside wargames – like Warhammer – from 250 pts to unlimited Apocalypse. There are also different points of view among players – what form better exposes the gameplay. We’ll use the example of Warhammer 40000, since the new edition may bring some changes into the standard game form.
Let’s look into the most obvious pros and cons of different game scales.
Small – up to 1000 pts. Really popular among the newcomers. No wonder – all you need to buy is a starter set and a couple of other boxes. In such games, it’s easier to control each unit. You are not likely to forget about your special rules or to move a unit. Micromanagement is a key here. Since you have a few units, the value of each one rises and you have to plan everything thoroughly.
On the other hand it causes a misbalance between elite armies with expensive units and cheap ones with lots of cannon fodder. For example – you can have only one Gray Knights Paladin squad, and your opponent – a whole ork greentide. No matter, how good are the Paladins (in fact, they aren’t), you don’t have enough attacks and shooting to kill all the orks. You also don’t get tactical benefits, since the one unit can hold only one objective. Sure, your opponent can use a lot of cheap and mobile units to control the battlefield.
Another advantage is game speed. Large scale games can be exhausting. You need to keep in mind a lot of information and stand up for the long hours. 1000 pts game won’t make you tired and will save your time.
However, the time issue is a matter of your professionalism. The more experienced you are, the faster the game goes. First 500 – 750 pts games can take even 3 hours, while an experienced player can use this time to play 2000 – 2500 pts game. When you and your opponent remember all the rules by heart, and you don’t prolong the game everything gets much easier. By the way, game ethics is a topic for another discussion.
Middle-size formats are traditional and logical – 1850 is an international sport standard for a reason. This lets you make an army with quite a lot of units, which can get advantage from the synergy, but it doesn’t make the game much harder. But what if not?
Big – from 2000 pts. What can be more epic than massive armies, marching onto each other? This is exactly the thing which makes people play wargames. Lots of units, vehicles, formations – battlefield as it is. Also, it adds tactical depth – you can afford to lose some units, maneuver and pay more attention to map control if you have a lot of units. If you have only 3, your game will be too straightforward.
But this brings the main problem – too much information to think about. You can say that it’s exactly the thing people play wargames for. But sometimes it’s hard even for the experienced players to keep in mind all the stats and movements of their and their opponent’s units. The experience shows that while a 3000 pts game can still be a good fun, a 4000 pts one is a pain in the neck. You spend hours to pack your army, half of the day to play, and get really tired in the end – no matter what the results are.
But a large-scale game changes the balance greately. You can easily take superheavy, huge formations and spend more points on the wargear to make your units play in their full strength. In other words – you have more ways to compensate your armies weaknesses.
This brings us to the main question – are standard formats so good as we think? 7th edition let us use superheavy and D-strength in usual games and this couldn’t leave the game scale untouched. All new Decurion-style detachments play much better from 2000 pts. Why should you take a unit only to fill in a force organization chart if you can add him effectiveness by spending more points?
It seems that our current balance problems are caused by the misunderstanding of the scale issue. If you don’t go into duplicating same units and creating meaningless death stars – the larger scale fixes a lot of balance issues. Time is not a problem, if the players are experienced. So, we need to choose the best points limit to use all the possibilities of the game and not to make the game a clumsy contraption. And maybe it’s 250 pts. 650 pts above standard 1850 is not too much to make the game harder, but this gives you enough space to improve your army. It also might be a good idea to create a separate points pool for the upgrades.
Try to play a large-scale game. Try to create a roster of your dream and then see, how much does it cost. It’s obvious that the scale is growing and we mustn’t be afraid to try something new if we don’t want to face the same problems with balance and playability.

Find more in our blog: http://warzone40k.com/warhammer-point-limit

If I were Games workshop, I would set the competitive play size at 1500 points and be done with it.

Eh, it all depends. Some people like small skirmishes and other people like large meat-grinders.
Didn't there used to be rules for special characters and units that they couldn't be taken in an army below a certain threshold? I think they should return to that to limit insanely OP units in smaller games.

Yeah I prefer the 1500-1750 pt range.. it allows for combos.. but not as much take on everything combos

Always had a soft spot for around 1500 points. Max being 1750 to 1850, but even then I still prefer 1500 as a general 'standard' size for pick-up play.

Just my opinion on that.

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

2000.

At 1500 a grey knight list is fairly limited, and the options needed to deal with fringe lists that spam as much AV 14 or monstrous creatures, or a green tide because lost. Generally, the lower the points, the more rock paper scissors the game gets, and the less it becomes about actual skill.

I like 2000 because you can bring a lot of stuff, and games aren't too long. Also, the options needed to create viable counters are far easier to squeeze in.

In our group games below 2000P are only made if one player doesn't have enough models for 2000P but wants to try out his new army. 2000P is an okay size, you have a decent amount of models and don't need that much time. Personally I hope that the new edition simplifies rules so that games above 2000P become faster. Or at least the Igougo system should be shaken up so you don't sit around half an hour doing nothing.

I like 1,000-1,250pts since you have to plan more carefully about what you're using rather than just throwing in everything, and you can say "please don't bring any superheavies" and people listen to you.

Then again I run a homemade Grey Knights book that has more low-level flexibility (3-model minimum on Terminators, two heavy weapons at five models in Strike squads, that sort of thing), so I may have a slightly skewed perspective.

I typically prefer 1000-1500, because they are small enough to not take forever and also limit a lot of the crazy BS you see at 2k and above (tons of flyers and superheavies) but allow for one or two centerpiece models and a themed army. Maybe 1650 (I have read that some tournaments have tried this format instead of 1850 and it worked better) as the upper limit. I would likely never go above 1850 though.

I like 2k 2v2 games or 1250 1v1

limited to 1 lord of war max per side

1362 points. Perfection.

I like playing multiple small games rather than a single large game. And strangely, there is a rather large difference between playing 1000pts game and playing 1100 pts game. I always find it limiting to fit a nice all-round basic army at 1000pts but those additional 100pts are enough for some upgrades or elite/character that adds flavour. And a 1100pts is a nice to fit on a 4'x4' table.

On the other hand, I don't realy understand or care about 1850pts standard and just play 2k+ if I want a large game. <2k limit is an artifact from double CAD times and has no real logic behind it. More so, in times of Decurions and formations 1850 is in a strange spot of being to large for a single CAD and too small for a decent Decurion based game... That is part of a reason people are fielding multiple formations and not more "fluffy" Decurion builds - they often simply don't fit in 1850pts. I find that 1500pts suits such "limited but competetive" mark a lot better, because you can still fill a decent CAD without spamming units and/or don't have enough room to spam formations.

I also prefer playing well below the "upper collection limit", because I like to play with different lists every couple of games to not get bored (I play with a small group of usual opponents, so having variance through new enemies is not an option for me). This one is purely relative of course, but I feel that playing at no more than 75% of "available model points" (without counting upgrades) assures some desired flexibility of lists to not get stuck in a rut of "my typical army".

Depends on table size.

4x4 - 500-750
4x6 - 1000
4x8 - 1000-1500
5x10 - 1500-2000
5x15 - 2000-3000
5x20 - 3000-4000

It gets impractical to make the table wider than 5'.

I lean towards 1000 point games given time and space constraints. It's also a good balance between turn-time and not having everything come down to one or two lucky rolls.

There are so many factors to it. 1000 pt games can take forever and 2k pt games can be really quick. For example, when you're running something like an old-school greentide vs ig footslogging horde with orders and magic. A lot of time spent on deployment, movement, run moves, throwing a ton of dice on shooting and attacks, etc.
And one might bring a couple knights and a deathstar to a 2k pt game - effectively having 15-20 models to think about.

I like to think on my moves that's why i left my 100+ boyz on the shelf and gave all the nobz megaarmor and trukks. Less models, more mobility - less tstuff to think about. It's quicker and way more effective in current screwed up meta.

The best point limit is in the name, 40,000. Go big or go home.

 Rolsheen wrote:
The best point limit is in the name, 40,000. Go big or go home.

And than they added a formation of emperor class titans that don't fit into 40k games.

I would say about 1850-2000 is the best points limit for me. You get enough points that you can stand a chance against any type of list without the games taking too long or you having to carry masses of boxes of minis. You also have enough points to build redundancy into your list so the tank heavy enemy can't take out your main anti tank thing before you get a turn. 1850 is also the standard size for a pick up game at my flgs too so that probably has some impact on my opinion.

 Asmodai wrote:
Depends on table size.

4x4 - 500-750
4x6 - 1000
4x8 - 1000-1500
5x10 - 1500-2000
5x15 - 2000-3000
5x20 - 3000-4000

It gets impractical to make the table wider than 5'.

I lean towards 1000 point games given time and space constraints. It's also a good balance between turn-time and not having everything come down to one or two lucky rolls.

I would probably at least double all of your points limits for those board sizes. You can easily do a 2000 point game on your average 4x6 board with everything having enough space to move around and not have anything squishy setting up outside of cover. Around 2500 it starts getting a bit crowded especially if someone has a horde army but I have played 4000 points on a 4x6 before without too much of a problem.

How about multiples of 750?
Small Skirmish: 750pts
Medium Engagement: 1500pts
Large Battle: 2250pts
Apocalyptic Warfare: 3000pts +

There really isn't one-not even on a person to person level.

Sometimes, I want a big ol' 3k game that'll take all day. Sometimes, I want a quick 1k game so I can play with several people. It just depends.

GW could declare a tournament point level and that wouldn't affect people's ability to have 1k, 2k, 3k, or whatever size games.

The point is we need to know what point level the game is balanced around. Because the further you deviate from the balance target, the more unbalanced the game will become.

Somewhere between.1,250 and 10,000 usually works for me.

Right now, I like 1,000 points maybe up to 1250 or better yet Heralds of Ruin Kill Team. I much prefer an infantry focused game with maybe a vehicle or two at 28mm. I think that fits scope far better than tank parking lots that often happen in bigger games. Same goes for those games so big that there is practically no maneuvering possible for horde armies.

My primary enjoyment to miniatures gaming is the spectacle, but when I see tables overloaded with miniatures I think it looks like a mess and a good reason why 40K Epic should still be a thing. At the individual load-out of models level that is 40K, I only want a handful of marine squads, a couple of dedicated transports and a main battle tank or assault vtol (demon engine monster) skirmish action. I think that looks about right on the tabletop to me.

 koooaei wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
The best point limit is in the name, 40,000. Go big or go home.

And than they added a formation of emperor class titans that don't fit into 40k games.

Ordo Sinister marches to war

I think it comes down to who and where you like to play. Honestly I don't like pick up games for much other than meeting new people who play 40k. The best games I have had are 5k points at home and not at a game store . It takes all day but it changes the dynamic. There is much more emphasis on play style, much more pressure for a beautiful table and a lot less rules lawyering. Also a lot more drinking. In most 5k games strategy comes down to what you have in resurves and what units you want to shine. Not to mention if you forget the rules to this group some models in the moment it's because tactically they probably did not fit in to how the game was going so who cares. It becomes obvious real quick who is expendable and what really matters. Plus it can actually be fun to loose! Not knowing your opponents every trick is really fun sometimes and nothing seems OP when literally everything is maxed out.

I do play smaller games but if it's not 2000 points it's kill team and hopefully now shadow war because I'm Siked to play a campaign with some individual growth.

Yeah every has advantages/disadvantages.

Generally the higher the points= the more unpredictable balance, longer game, bigger table required, more time required.

What's more fun? I can't say that's too list/person subjective.

Wayniac wrote:
I typically prefer 1000-1500, because they are small enough to not take forever and also limit a lot of the crazy BS you see at 2k and above (tons of flyers and superheavies) but allow for one or two centerpiece models and a themed army. Maybe 1650 (I have read that some tournaments have tried this format instead of 1850 and it worked better) as the upper limit. I would likely never go above 1850 though.

Low points in competitions actually promote flyers and super heavies since most lists below 1500 can not pack enough AA or AT for both. I went to a 500 point list event and literally half the armies had half their points in flyers. I've seen more flyrants at 500 points than at 2000.

1000 points has similar problems, and 1500 it only gets a little better.

Honestly not fussy.
I've enjoyed games in just about any point size - table size makes a bigger difference in my opinion.

It's a subjective answer based on faction unfortunately.

While 1500 is a sweet spot for most games, several armies severely struggle at this point level. Blood Angels and IG both have detachments that require hefty point commitments just to achieve mediocre benefits. While Eldar or Tau for example can do well at any level.

I like 2000.

I'd say that at least for me, the answer is two-fold:

-- For larger games, 2000 - 3000 Points is always good. It always you enough flexibility with your lists to try a lot of things while not being so big that you may need multiple days to play the game (I say this because - 9 times out of 10 - my friends who play 40K don't have a full day off to dedicate to 40K and neither do I).

-- For smaller games, 500 - 750 allows you to have a lot of fun, restricts you enough so that there aren't too many (if any) shenanigans relating to "Abuse of List Building" (i.e. producing wombo combos through the use of very strong Formations, game mechanics, etc etc etc)., and allows for great little skirmish matches.

Of course other points limits can be fun and can share some of the same benefits of the points brackets I've listed above, but it is in these brackets that I think the game is most ideal and these benefits are taken advantage of the most.